The recent cabinet and army reshuffle has ignited a call for deep introspection about the type of transition the political opposition has always yearned for. The opposition is consistent calling for a transition from the bush war heroes to a new generation, but when there is an apparent generational transition with in the cabinet, army, civil service and NRM leadership from historicals to a young generation, there are deafening shrills of foul play, quick to dismiss it as inconsequential and a decoy. The debate in public domain is about defining what kind of transition those agitating for it envisage. There are two schools of thought. The first being that the exit of president Museveni would mark a true beginning of a transition by creating a void at the top that would cascade downwards. To those opposed to Museveni, look at this as a way to create a different, but a parallel power structure outside the grip of the Luwero bush war outfit to their surrogates. To them, whatever changes done below him, means nothing as long as he remains at the helm.
The second school of thought, advocates for a gradual transition that involves replacing the old old guard with the young generation in a systematic structured manner, slowly gravitating towards filling strategic positions that hitherto were held by senior cadres.
However, this has generated divergent opinions, where those opposed to it, feel that the new blood is an extension of the status quo. As long as it is Museveni who appoints them, they will always play by his whims. On the other hand, the proponents of this thought aver that a seamless change where the old guard shape out, as the new generation shapes in, causes less disruptions and ensures institutional memory. Structural cohesion is maintained and ideological clarity is guaranteed.
The biggest dilemma of the opposition, is that they are so specific on who should constitute the transition train, to them transition means opposition taking over the reigns of power, even when they can’t muster the numbers to propel them through the ballot. After this realization, they now talk of a negotiated transition. This means the transition won’t be a popular choice of the masses, but a boardroom decision. On the other hand, the NRM ruling party insist on letting the voter decide who should lead them and when. It should be an organic decision of the voter that a transition is needed and when it should happen. In the recent past, public appointments and placements have shown entry of young people in positions of responsibility.
Proponents of this school of thought, point to the fact that for some time, transition has been taking place at different levels of governance, in the party, government, local councils, institutions etc. The cabinet, for instance is now over 60% youthful faces. This has been long coming till the recent reshuffle where more youths were picked. The appointment of General Muhoozi Kainerugaba as the Chief of Defense Forces replacing General Wilson Mbadi, lays credence to this supposition.
Structurally, there are institutional positions that can’t transit haphazardly without referring to internal governance dynamics. For instance, the army has a clear code of appointment, career progression, placement and retirement. The appointment of Gen Muhoozi could be seen in this light as a General with requisite qualifications, his parentage notwithstanding.
The opposition call for a transition faces a challenge of inability to position themselves as a viable alternative, most of them are greenhorns, fragmented and lacking a definitive rallying call for a change. The experienced politicians are looked at with disdain by political neonates who think they are the new kids on the block, so their genre of politics must prevail. The politics of the “wave” rather than ideological grounding. This is recipe for chaos should they get power without having defined ideological clarity. Severally, it has come out that there is a widening schism between progressive experienced members and the populist neophytes. The duel is between organizational structure and a quick fix. That is why the KIGWA LEERO mantra has great traction among the wave adherents.
The main question that remains lurking in the minds of transition rabble-rousers is what type of change? Is a change for its sake, by whatever means or a seamless transition that is a hallmark of a democratic process? Should the voter havea say or there is a cabal of conspirators who arrogate themselves the duty to determine the direction on our behalf.
Comments are closed.